O inferno da relação: histérica e obsessivo.

"The madness of each day gives us today the theme of the third chapter, the relationship between hysterics and obsessive. The woman who is obsessive, I like to call it the "perfect hell". Well, first of all, we need to consider initials, which exist in the names of hysterics and obsessive women. But I'm doing here a caricature with a hysterical woman and an obsessive man, which is where these traits are usually presented. It may also happen to be the opposite, it's important to know that it is a caricature of some traits of this neurosis and how to try to relate to this case. In the second place, I would like to say that I'm doing a caricature of the symptom. At some point this symptom will be shared. It's not as general as I put it here. I would have to listen to one by one to be able to say or to people to be able to say the singular of the symptom of it. What starts in a generalization here of neurotic trait is to be particularized in an analytical process. That's clear. So let's go. Although this relationship can be an inferno between the obsessive neurotic and the hysterical, they are in fact made one to the other. And the vast majority of amorous relations works in this base. What is the base? What one tries to give the other cannot receive. I will repeat because this is the base of everything I will talk about today. What he tries to give, he cannot receive. Did they listen to us? Why? Let's go. The hysterical would be the one that sustains the desire of the other by missing. What do I want to say with this? She has the desire to cause the desire of the partner. The desire to be desired by the other. To cause the desire of the partner, she has to be in the position of always being satisfied. Why? Because the desire never satisfied, for structure. So, in any way, the hysterical is always pointing to the power in the other. She is the eternal in satisfied. Then, what I call inferno, perfect. Why? Because the obsessive neurotic is the one that will try to do everything by partner. But not because he is an altruist. No, he does because he responds from the prepotence position, from the prepotence of which it would be possible to give exactly what the other wishes. Let's go. He is made of tender wood, but it is not. Well, neither she was. He tries to suppress this desire of the woman. Justly to the side. Look at the great paradox of the obsessive neurotic. It is how it dries and is very common to hear this in the story. Let me solve this for her to stop asking me. Let me solve for her to stop asking me. And so I can stay in peace. That's the same. The sun or the golden, the great sun of the obsessive neurotic, is to be dead. Because in the position of dead, the other would stop demanding and demand everything. So the obsessive neurotic makes an interesting operation. Imagine, right? The obsessive neurotic takes the desire of the other as a demand to be resolved. To be resolved, not because he is worried about the other. To be resolved to be ignored. To free this demand. The greatest dream of obsessive neurotic is to be able to be dead. The dead here would have the function to put the demands that they feel. Thank you for responding all the time. Look at it, listen. It is important to listen to the calm here. The fact that they felt grateful to respond to demands. I don't want to say that someone is asking for something for him. He himself, if needed, creates or supports this other demand. Just to be able to do it in some way as that who resolves. Do you know the value of the obsessive neurotic? I am the observer. I am the savior. Well, I think he has already been able to listen to the incredible command here, right? And how much this can cause suffering? Because the obsessive neurotic is almost a voluntary slave. And the general hysterica. Because she, in some way, knows that the demand is impossible to be resolved. That's why she demands and leaves the obsessive there trying to solve. And so the base of this relation is this. Without moral judgment, none of us here is deeply authentic. And causes a great suffering. There is no right or wrong here. And we will see why, okay? So that's why she demands and leaves the obsessive there trying to solve. The hysterica knows that the false is structural in some way. But there is a detail. She does not put this false structural, including herself. She puts this false in the other, never in her. Therefore, the hysterica, like the obsessive neurotic, responds from the prepotence position. The two. And this is a problem for her, like the hysterica and for those who live with her, right? She puts the impotence in the other. She demands, in some way, that this response about her desire comes from the other. Look how interesting. But this does not mean that a hysterica woman does not suffer. Because, having to always demand, does not feel desired anymore. I will repeat. Having to always demand from the other. Because this position she puts. She does not feel desired enough. Look, for hysterica, if we were to make a caricature here, nothing is enough. It's very common to listen to in the consultorium here. In the confectionary of the consultorium. Something like this, for example, of analyzing, talking about love. But I would not want to have to ask for this to him. I would want his desire to be desired, to be desired. Look how interesting. The obsessive neurotic in the consultorium, in contrasting and making a allegory here, would talk more or less like this. I do not want more. Nothing of what I do is right. This woman is insupportable. Nothing for her is enough. Look, you are listening. It is an impulsive relationship. It is a way to relate to failure to failure. What I do not want to say is that there is no exit. I am presenting a caricature of a hysterica and a neurotic obsessive, responding to the false position. But to the front I explain what this is. But responding to the neurotic position for excellence, which is the prepotence position. Well, it is exactly this prepotence to think that can respond to the demand of love, that by structure it is infinite and therefore impossible to be responded, that the neurotic is sustained and suffers from hunger. If he says, "I do not take anything more than I do, it is fine." Among other things, he is saying that every time he tries to do more, to satisfy and to annul the desire of the partner. Because this verb in the neurotic obsessive, to resolve, to save, to do everything by the other, when he comes to disfarse, how could I say altruism? But it is far from that, it is deeply self-refered, guys. He tries to resolve to annul the desire of the other. Well, therefore it is a false servitude, a partner. So let's look at the hysterical point, the impotence of his time, and he is the serious slave who tries to resolve, or turn this impotence possible to be responded all the time. Then he wants the partner to desire. That is why he studies for that desire, and finally recognizes, as a very strong hero, as a very fragile mother, as a mother and recognized him. So let's continue a little more. Well, only this will not happen for a simple reason. This recognition of the part of her, of her partner. So that she feels desired and maintains this false, always alive, always working, can not see the recognition of his effort, because this recognition would kill the desire. Look here, it is never difficult. The dissatisfaction of her, and the impotence of the partner has to be pointed all the time. She has never been satisfied, because she can't. She can't be satisfied, because in the supposition, in the hysterical construction, if she recognizes, she would let it be desired. Well, it is more or less like this, symptoms get hooked up in some way. You are listening, guys. Like one, one and another get hooked up there, by the symptoms, by the life of the symptoms. The hysterical, by having to demand all the time, does not know why it would be desired. That is why it is not worth asking the partner. She asks all the time, what I am for you. Why do you love me? Like if he was, if the detentor of a real respect of her desire. The demand of her is that the another says what she is. Or says what she is for him. What among other things is how she asks if, why is it desired? The question is about desire. Like if the other man, woman in the room, could someone in the planet Earth, could respond to our desires, guys. The operation is impossible. And this is the analytical work, which you can respond to your desire, and do not demand that this answer comes from the other. So, this question that the hysterical does for obsessive, he also does not know how to respond. He just wants to be recognized by his efforts in attempt, impossible to answer this demand. The obsessive is very good in this armament, precisely because he likes it. As a hysterical threat, in some way, to put together what is missing. The two can suffer a lot in this operation, but very much in this repetition. And this is one of the most common requests that I receive here of an analysis. In an analysis. Resuming here, let's go. The hysterical does not achieve this desire, because it demands all the time. The obsessive does not achieve this recognized desire, because it requires the impossible. And it is conducted on the other side, precisely where it supports your desire. It is a very large contradiction, because it tries to do it on the other side, but it needs the other side to be fundamental to his desire. This is in such an autological operation, and much more specified. I receive many neurotic ones, absolutely paralyzed in this operation. To destitute and annular. It lowers the partner, puts it as an unannounced object, because putting it as an object is not lowering it. I'll start talking about this a little bit. That every subject can be put as an object in the fantasy of the other. If putting it is to decide to be there, choose to be there. The so-neurotic obsessive, as hysterical, confuses in this position. Let's go. Let's talk a little bit about the hysteria. And then we close on what would be an analytic work and what would be an analysis output, both for men and for women. Let's talk about the hysterical I wanted to talk about the following. The following scene, imagine the following. A man is sitting in a coffee and seeing a super interesting house, a man and a woman passing by. He thinks the woman super attractively is looking for her. A woman in the same situation makes it different. She can even feel attracted by the man, by the man of the man of the house. But even so, it will spend more time observing the woman who is with him. What interests her is not as much a man or a woman to her, but the relationship between them. Look how interesting. The question that this woman would observe in the house is what does that woman have who turned that man into her partner? The question of the woman is about the desire and not about the object, as would the question of the man. Why? Because the hysterical wants to be the cause of the desire of the other. She wants to know what causes that desire. So, the hysterical identifies the desire and not with the object. And this has its implications, guys. In the famous, what we can call, in the famous, the hysterical refuse. She refuses the hysterical, it would be that she refuses to be put in the position of the object. Because she supposes to be put in the position of the object to submit. Ah, let's listen to calm down. Because the hysterical then, she is in the false position, as if it were an obsessive neurotic. We would have to make a difference of what a woman would be and a hysterical woman. The positions are absolutely different. And this would need a more or less, a year to explain the forms of sexualization of the Law, to differentiate the whole false position, which is not the whole false. I'm summarizing a little here, trying to simplify a little, right, guys? So, what I'm repeating here, the hysterical is in the false position. Okay? Because if you put in the position of the object in a final analysis, between other things, you can choose and decide to be in this position and use it. The hysterical thing can't be done. The hysterical, as if there would be a pure or obsessive neurosis, pure. I'm using it as a caricature. The hysterical would be the one that recruits the body. This is the hysterical recruits, right? Because if you put as an object, in a way that no one is subjected to the other. From the moment it's a choice. So, in the relationship with the partner, the hysterical adopts a strategy of sub-traction, as she would say, a strategy that escapes. It's quite common, for example, to listen to a report. Let's do a hysterical tip, right? It's possible to listen to a case, for example, or in a relationship with a hysterical woman, saying, "My body was there, in the sexual act, in his arms, but I'm in another place. I wasn't there." So, the hysterical, in this recruits, if you put as an object, you can't feel desired. Let's move on a little bit more. The hysterical question would be, "Is he my mother?" The question of the neurotic obsessive would be, "Will I love her?" It's the obsessive doubt of everything. Even the own love capacity. And the doubt has this obsessive neurosis function, which is to have any type of engagement, any decision-making, neurotic, for excellence, has a great difficulty with that. Well, it was more of what it is about. Coming here to the conclusion of what is present, of this type of relationship that is present, almost as a non-relation, because this is not the same. Possibility, both are suffering, but they don't know much about that. It is possible, people, to feel the feeling of being taken for the other. That the woman can be placed in the object knowing that it is not. Instead of identifying the time with the lack, because the hysterical identifies with the lack. She needs to be the one she lacks. And she sustains the desire of the other there, missing. And for men, it should be possible not rebelling the object in the attempt to annul it. That is, it should be possible not to take the desire of the other, as a demand, or as a problem to be resolved, because the neurotic sense takes the desire of the woman. Not only the woman, but in all relationships, the neurotic sense that takes the desire of the other, as a demand. So, everything becomes a job to be resolved. The verbal resolve. This is the big obsessive neurotic verb, in all its prepotence. And resolve, among other things, try to get rid of the demand. That is what the verbal resolve. Resolving is a verb that goes very well with a sobrevivere. The obsessive neurotic is sobrevived, but not necessarily, you know, to live. It's very common to listen to the hysterical, thinking about the obsessive neurotic, talking about the God of heaven as it is boring. He always wants the same things. He doesn't want to change anything. He wants to be treated. The sound of the neurotic obsessive is already listening to this. In analysis. The sound of the neurotic obsessive would be, for example, being in a leit of Albert Einstein, treated. Taking all the possible drugs in the old. With that absolutely controlled environment, conditioned, television, books, sick, taking care of him all the time, that is in the leit of the hospital, and that is not demanded. It's the closest thing you can get to death. Without dying, it's obvious, because then the demand would be resolved. The sound of the neurotic obsessive is this. For example, Michael Jackson arrived next to... I mean, the last analysis, he was able to do that. He was able to die. But before that, he took this general anesthesia. All the night. He hired a doctor so that this anesthesia in him somehow he would die, and wake up on the following day. This is the caricature of the neurotic obsessive. It's clear that in Michael Jackson's case, he was not only a neurotic obsessive. He had other versions of him. And then another podcast. I recommend you to watch the documentary "Live in Neverland" that shows his relationship with his pedophilia, how the archipelago was perpetuated during his entire life. It's another structure. Let's say so. But the neurotic obsessive passes through there. It is not necessarily living. And how would it be, in the end, for a man obsessive and for a woman hysterical? In the end, it's an analytic job. It would not be a way to stop demanding or being demanded. But to support the demand of the other. Supporting is to stop suffering by the needs of love that does not guarantee the completeness of sex, masculine and feminine. And the verb "supporting" in another version would be support the fantasy of the partner. But not because the partner demands. But because you want, it's because of decision, for choice, to be there, in the position of object. To feel, to be supportive, in a way, to feel this subimeter. It's important to make this difference here. I think you already can listen in this way. The analytic experience, in the end, can lead us to stop, to blame the partner for the effects of the structure. What are the effects of the structure? Do not resist the complete fusion, nor the complete satisfaction. The satisfaction is always partial. It is never absolute. To seek the absolute satisfaction is the path to frustration, eternal. Then, to close. Therefore, not to reproach the other, not to be man, or male, or male, or male. Idealized positions are sustainable. The analysis can be observed in your end. In this case, it is invasible to that place, where guilt would always be attributed to another. This place is invasible, and with a light, or with a light, the man, the woman, will be aware that there is no one here, who can break down. Let's take each one, to stop managing the other, the satisfaction of the own madness, of the madness of dreaming with a man, or a man, or a woman. Idealized. In this sense, the analysis could, or should, take us to suffer a little in the demands of love. In other words, in a way to accept the impossible, of the structure, to accept only one symptom to the other. With feeling, then, being able to put yourself as an object of the fantasy of the other, and use it. Sometimes, this perception ends with the recrimination and gives the place precisely to love, or the possibility of a relationship. Let's close it here today. I will leave the suggestion of reading of some books, of some research for those who are interested in the stories of my Instagram today, okay? A kiss to everyone and see you next time.